The Internet is known for its more passionate, vocal users. Whether it’s trying to raise breast cancer awareness via Facebook or petitioning the world’s nations over important issues, people who would otherwise feel powerless can add just a little bit to a cause. They might do it to feel better about themselves, to fit in with their friends or maybe, just maybe, everybody genuinely likes to do a little bit of good in their lives. There’s another side to it though, when the passion, when the anger is misdirected and somebody ends up victimised; it happens all too often.

Who can forget the lady who, as a member of the PR team behind Telltale’s Jurassic Park game, borrowed a replica Jeep and then was dragged through the mud after the owner posted details to reddit and claimed the car had come back damaged? By the time counter-evidence had been presented to prove the “victim’s” complaint and everything backing it up had been fabricated, her personal details had been leaked and she’d spent hours avoiding phone calls, text messages, and emails. John Beiswenger, the author behind a series of novels in which a corporation sends people “back in time” via ancestral memories, is the latest victim of overly-defensive Internet masses.

If the novels’ scenario sounds familiar, it’s because it’s a very similar plot to that found in the hugely successful Assassin’s Creed games. But Mr Beiswenger is more than just a novelist and, as a quick scan of his website will attest, he’s working towards things that will genuinely improve the lives of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. At 75, the product research engineer probably shouldn’t be the victim of a smear campaign, a stunt that left his books rubbished on Amazon, rude emails sent via his website, and thousands of people he’ll never know actively hating him. It’s just not right.

Things only get worse when you take a second to look at the projects he’s currently involved in, from the Presymtec Monitor – a device which can alert you to illnesses before you show symptoms – to a series of housing structures the world over. Even two seconds of research or a moment taken to actually contact John and query what was going on would have revealed that this isn’t a man deserving of derision, and he certainly isn’t a man that would enter into a lawsuit frivolously.

So why was he the recipient of so much bile over the last few weeks? Mr Beiswenger claims that Ubisoft infringed on his intellectual property right – not because he’s vindictive or because this is a way to make a quick buck (anybody who’s been involved in a suit like this knows that the costs can be high and the rewards minimal) but because, as he puts it in an official statement, “I believe authors should vigorously defend their rights in their creative works. Otherwise, the laws protecting those rights simply have no purpose.”

Bethesda gave a very similar reason for suing Mojang over the use of the word “scrolls” in their next game. If they hadn’t defended their right to the word in this case, they wouldn’t be able to defend their right to the word in future cases. It goes a little deeper than just defending a trademark in this case though, and Mr Beiswenger feels that anybody who has read his book (as opposed to reading the sample pages on Amazon) will see the similarities. “Many said that you can’t copyright an idea, which is true,” he told me via email, “but you can copyright graphic descriptions written into a novel. Read the graphic description of the LINK lab and equipment. Then look at the Animus 2.0 lab and equipment. You be the judge.”

The people who wrote disgusting emails and bad reviews at Amazon probably didn’t think to actually read the book, however, or even consider spending a little bit of time thinking about what they were doing. Of the hundreds of emails he received from angry Assassin’s Creed fans worried that the next episode in their favourite series might be delayed, an overwhelming 95% were negative. One even went as far as to accuse John of travelling through time to steal ideas from Ubisoft in an attempt to sue them years later. You can only hope that, caught up in the manic-nature of the moment, he was joking, although sometimes it’s not easy to be sure.

A common counter to the suit was that there had been four games and multiple handheld spin-offs before legal proceedings had been entered into. If Mr Beiswenger was in this for anything other than money, why had he waited until the series was at its very peak before contacting his lawyers? The fact that not everybody plays video games aside, there are a thousand reasons why he might not have called Ubisoft out straight away, but, knowing that it was a sticky topic some detractors just couldn’t get over, I asked him about it anyway: “Except for MS Flight Simulator, I don’t play or follow video games (I’m a research engineer and prefer reality). My son and niece bought the original Assassin’s Creed and began to play the game in our recreation room downstairs early this year.

“Soon after the game began, my son came running up the stairs shouting, ‘Dad, it’s your book!’ He had read LINK years earlier and immediately recognized similarities. I thought, ‘That’s neat. They (the game writers) liked my novel.’ It was the first I heard of Assassin’s Creed. But when my son purchased Assassin’s Creed II, the Animus 2.0 lab and equipment, I believed, were absolutely copied from the LINK lab and equipment. It was then I realized that readers of my novel would think I took the LINK lab and equipment from the Assassin’s Creed game. My book is a Christian-SciFI novel. I had to object!”

Pictured: The Animus 2.0 from Assassin’s Creed II (left), which allows Desmond to become Ezio (right).

It was difficult to deliver any sort of counter message to those fans so fervently opposed to anything that might block the release of Assassin’s Creed III, thanks in part to the biased nature of those covering the lawsuit on gaming sites and blogs. “Only about 5% of the writers knew at all what they were talking about,” Beiswenger explained, “because they either did not read LINK, the Complaint against Ubisoft, or neither.” They were repeating what they’d read without verifying it, without sourcing it and without thinking about the effect that their words might have. Facetious comments on gaming blogs are usually directed at PR spokespeople or faceless corporations, but occasionally the vitriol can be misplaced and we can forget, from our comfortable office chairs, that there are people on the receiving end of the attack.

Even the titles reek of a sort of school yard giggling, a kind of passive aggressive “what a joke” that unfortunately is passed onto readers who are far less likely to actually check what’s being presented to them. From the very get go, I would say that snide comments from uninterested writers have caused this lawsuit to become something incredibly nasty, where not only has the case not been presented fairly, using actual facts instead of misunderstanding and stipulation, but almost encouraging users to send threats. It’s one of those situations where what we write has a real-life knock-on effect and I’m not sure many of the writers, nor the commenters who voiced their anger in their thousands, realise just how nasty some people can be.

“Mat, it has been abad couple ofmonths […] for theaverage author (notjust the smallerones), copyrightsmay be uselesswhen a majorcorporation is theoffender.”

It’s gone from a dispute between a small author and a major publisher into a dispute between a small author, a publisher, plus all of the publisher’s fans. Depending how the lawsuit had gone, it could have meant a new level of power to small authors without the money or, in some cases, confidence to protect their art. Instead, there’s just another reason not stand up to the big guy.

I have no opinion on the LINK case, I intend to pick up the book at some time in the future and decide for myself. For all I know, the masses might be right, but I can’t know that for sure because other than a short preview on Amazon I just don’t have the “ammo” to add to this debate. What I can discuss is this: some people should be ashamed of themselves. I’m paid to take games seriously, but sometimes you just have to take a step back and say “this is all a form of entertainment; let’s make it a little less life and death.” And part of that, I’m afraid, is not threatening people we don’t necessarily agree with. It’s about delivering facts rather than half-hidden insults, about looking into things we’re writing about and not taking anything for granted based on reddit posts and childish bloggers.

More recently, Mr Beiswenger has voluntarily dismissed the action, leaving the opportunity to sue again in the future. Ubisoft have moved to block any future lawsuits involving the similarities between LINK and Assassin’s Creed, an odd move from a multi-million dollar company when faced with the comparably limited resources of a product research engineer. I asked him why they would feel the need to do that: “If they have not infringed, why file to stop me from refiling my Complaint?”

Ubisoft issued a statement over their counter-case: “The plaintiff in the case alleging copyright infringement by Ubisoft has dropped his claim, without settlement. Ubisoft believes this suit was frivolous and without merit, and is seeking a ruling to prevent future related claims. We are proud of our creative teams and will continue to vigorously defend the intellectual property they develop.” We contacted the company for further comment and will update this article if we get anything back.

My final question to John was about the effect that the lawsuit has had upon him and his family and what he felt it had meant. “Mat,” he told me, “it has been a bad couple of months. Our faith has sustained us and we go about our lives as normal. For the average author (not just the smaller ones), copyrights may be useless when a major corporation is the offender.”

And no matter what your view of the case may be, I can’t help but agree with that last sentence. If you can’t even enter into a lawsuit in the hopes of protecting your work without being on the receiving end of all this hate – from regular people, not representatives of the company – then the major corporation is free to do what it wants without fear of repercussion; they know that if David tries to battle Goliath, the Goliath fan club is going to hunt him down. It’s a sorry state of affairs and, while the fallout is hardly the fault of Ubisoft directly, it’s a shame that things have turned out this way.

I learned absolutely nothing of value in this article. I’m a little disappointed that someone that has ‘no opinion on the LINK case,’ privileged to an interview with Beiswenger, would go on to state that proper research was not done in order to make this article worth a read. All you’ve done is humanize a person whose motives still remain questionable. This article did nothing but provide hearsay about the validity of a case that, according to hearsay, appears more frivolous than legitimate. The word ‘hypocrisy’ comes to mind. This article shouldn’t have been published until “some time in the future” after you’ve put more time into researching the topic.

On top of Connor’s post, I’d argue that the point of this article is not to prove the people who attacked Beiswenger wrong, but that their actions were wrong. I’m in no different a position than the countless people who shared their opinion of the case (except that I’ve spoke with John and that I’ve spent time reading everything available on suit), the difference being that I didn’t attack a 75 years old based on his belief that his rights had been infringed upon.

And, because I didn’t think things through before I clicked post, I’d just like to say that contacting John and reading the suits haven’t put me in a special position. Anybody, press or not, can do so, but the vast majority of people decided not to.

Wow, you are basically doing the exact same thing as those you are making accusations against.

What proof do you even have that anyone at Ubisoft even read the book or the fact that it existed? This is a book so obscure that it only had one review on Amazon eight years after it was Self-Published until this incident. Who made you the judge and who gave you the right to judge them as disgusting and pathetic?

I did not post any negative review of the book anywhere, but I will defend Ubisoft and I consider you a prick for making these baseless accusations. The fact that you named Jade Raymond(a name that you misspelled, I might add) basically tells me you know nothing about the Franchise. She was never the Creative head of this franchise, so go do some research instead of being a hypocrite that accuses other people of the same things you are doing.

Mr.Beiswenger’s book does not have a Medieval Arabic assassinating Saracens and Christians during the third crusade. The book does not have a young Florentine Noble/Assassin during the Renaissance seeking revenge for his family. His book does not contain a Half-British and Half-Mohawk Assassin seeking justice for the Native Americans during the American Revolution.

His book certainly does not have a bartender using the memories of his ancestor to prevent a Solar Flare disaster based on the 2012 theories of apocalypse.

Those are the expressions of the genetic memory idea in the Assassins’s Creed, and Ubisoft most certainly thought of those expressions on their own.

If I were him, I wouldn’t sue. Who the fuck cares if they “stole” his idea? I would’ve been grateful that my shitty books inspired a beautiful series that have inspired and pleased millions of gamers. Nobody has heard of this fucking book. Nobody gives a shit about this fucking book. Of course his son saw similarities, there’s similarities in every fucking thing on planet earth. A platypus has a beak, he must’ve stole the idea off the duck! There are talking dogs in Family Guy, they must’ve got the idea from Garfield! What a fucking idiot. I swear to God there’s no justice in the world if this man’s lawsuit is taken any more seriously than a 12 year old boy’s fart joke.

If the talking dog from Family Guy looked identical from a talking dog in Garfield, that would be a problem for the people who own Garfield. They can’t sue of the general idea of talking dogs, but they can sue on the personality, likeness and description of their particular talking dog. If you read the suit, there’s an awful lot of things that John’s lawyers feel Ubisoft have copied too closely and so it’s fully in John’s right to sue.

On top of anything else, the quality or quantity sold of the book doesn’t matter in cases like this and, unfortunately, inspiration doesn’t put food on the table. The important thing is whether the similarities are enough to say Ubisoft knowingly copied ideas from the book and that’s up to a judge to decide.

Agreeing with f88 here. To quote, “All you’ve done is humanize a person whose motives still remain questionable”. While I haven’t written any angry letters to anyone on the matter, I’ve read the ENTIRE set of charges (don’t bother, it’s incredibly repetitive) and honestly speaking, the fact that the old guy is trying to invent helpful things is great, but none of the charges actually seem valid. The fact that Jesus is mentioned in both titles is a sue-able point? Really? The Animus set-up is the same as the Link? The Animus set-up changes in each game. One configuration was bound to seem familiar at some point and the exact specifications are grasping at straws (hanging monitors?). The entire ‘accessing ancestral-memories’ point? There was material back in the 60s with the same concept. Dune?

Then, the suit was asking for several million (I forget the exact amount, apologies) in damages which was absurd considering how much the novel probably made and any profits actually lost (The only lost profits probably came from this lawsuit…) and that Ubisoft cease production of the third installment of the series which, considering the production costs and that it’s due out in a few months, is not only unreasonable, it’s ridiculous.

I’m sorry that the internet hate machine has caused personal distress (blame “Tumblr Social Justice”), but seriously this lawsuit was silly. Ubisoft is probably blocking any further suit because they’re time consuming, aggravating, and leaves them open to everyone who thinks they can get a slice of the pie. This is a major corporation, but it’s not Google and it’s not Procter-Gamble. It’s a video game company. They’re not David, but they’re not Goliath, either. They can’t just let these things slide. And who’s to say that he wouldn’t bring up the lawsuit again *right* before the release date? I’m not sure on the legality here, but if the same C&D charges applied, wouldn’t that possibly be problematic for an on-time release? If I were Ubisoft, I’d try to restrict further suits as well.

All you’ve done here is given a “You should feel bad about your actions!” speech and yes, some zealots may deserve it, but you’ve really done nothing for the issue at hand.

Hi Ari, thanks for taking the time to comment. I’ll try and address each of your points individually and hope that you make it back at some point.

I don’t see how his motives are questionable, personally. They’re pretty clear to me. He wants to defend his work. Whether he’s right that he’s been the victim of copyright infringement or not is up to a judge, not people on the internet, but, his motives are pretty clear. I’m not sure I understand the people saying he’s purely out for money because, as I say in the article, that’s a pretty big risk and one that is very unlikely to pay off when faced with the might of a multi-million dollar company (also, add the fact that he’s never been involved in a lawsuit before, hardly the act of someone only doing it for a vast amount of cash).

You say you’ve read the suit and it certainly would seem that you have, but there’s a point you’ve gotten wrong. The suit doesn’t say that John is suing over the AC use of Jesus (and I’m not even sure they’ve used Jesus, have they?) but because at the end of the novel there’s a twist in which Jesus is speaking to the character in the present through their ancestor, rather than directly to the ancestor. Later discussion of Jesus is in regards to the religious themes, one of the 30+ similarities claimed by John’s lawyers and one that people seem to have become obsessed over.

Is that enough to sue over? Of course not, but take into account everything that is mentioned in that case (you have to view it as a whole suit, not a list of similarities) and you can argue that, if a judge deems each complaint applicable, there’s an awful lot of similar ideas and themes. Whether it’s a coincidence or not, I’d want to protect my work if I saw that many similarities and any other sane person who has a creative copyright would as well. It’s up to the judge to decide whether those points are enough to say that Ubisoft were directly copying the book, but it’s up to Beiswenger to initiate the defence of his work.

It’s also worth noting that the Banner-Witcoff Ubisoft Complaint was written up by lawyers who no doubt have been through both the book and the games with a fine tooth comb. What initially made the Beiswenger family concerned over copyright infringement isn’t point-by-point what’s on that website.

Considering that you’ve read the case, I’m surprised you’ve said that John wants millions. That’s what several websites reported, wrongly, but from what I can tell he’s either looking at $90,000 or $450,000, depending how the judge rules. On top of that he’d want legal fees and such paid, but the base settlement is far less than “millions of dollars,” and I’m sure is standard in cases like these, in which there are allegedly multiple cases of infringement.

I believe, and like you I’m not 100% on this sort of thing, that there would only be a delay if it was decided there was a reason to change the code in the game - if Ubisoft had indeed copied the book. Which is why I see it as an odd thing to do. If they’re innocent, my understanding is that there’s no risk.

Finally, I’d argue that there are lots of good quotes in this article, John really opened up and answered questions that he hadn’t before. Given that he’s in the middle of lawsuit, there were things he couldn’t comment on, but there ARE things in this article that he’s never spoken about before, which certainly adds to the issue at hand. With that said, it’s an opinion piece, an editorial, and I can’t tell you how sick it made me to see the reaction to John based on badly written news pieces (wildly exaggerating the facts, that he was after millions of dollars for instance) and on hearsay. Not because he’s an old man or because he does good in the world but because there were a group of human beings acting incredibly poorly towards another human being based on nonsense. On top of that, it made the gaming community look immature and vindictive. Whether you feel like part of the community or not, if you class yourself as a “gamer” or if you’re just someone interested in it as a hobby, you were made to look bad by people who felt they were doing Ubisoft a service. That sort of person shouldn’t be allowed to think that.

If I’ve humanized John in this article, it’s only as a result of so many other writers painting him as the villain, a Fagin with evil plans and an empty current account. Talking with him, actually finding out his side of the story and becoming more disgusted at those that would call this “justice,” or, indeed, defend or dismiss that he’s been victim to anything other than a mass case of cyber victimizing, isn’t necessarily humanizing, but I do think he needed to be painted in a different light. He deserves not to be a villain to people who don’t understand what’s going on and have made massive assumptions based on things they’ve been told and haven’t checked..

I’ve reached out to Ubisoft and I’m quite happy to do exactly the same as I’ve done for John - deliver a more factually accurate account of the lawsuit as they see it. The difference being, Ubisoft have been painted in a very good light from this, they have a team of lawyers working around the clock and, as far as I know, nobody on their staff have anything to fear from checking their emails or answering an unknown number. I don’t expect them to take me up on my offer.

i’m not sure you read the entire lawsuit. He was not only suing against “Assassin’s Creed” which is the first installment of the series, in which he was asking for $90,000-$450,000. but also everything that had to do with it, including the sequels. in which the sum of all the lawsuits was between $1.05 m and $5.25 m. with the first being willful infringement and the latter being if they do not admit to it. so if you are going to say that he isn’t in it for the money, at least be right about it.

Ah yes, thought I was in a more general area when actually, as you say, that bit is specifically for AC.

Still, the amount only comes into it if Ubi are guilty and, if they’re guilty, I don’t see anything wrong with that. I still don’t see how you could say that proves he’s in it for the money, I think that’s a rather large leap to make, but I concede I was wrong on the amount I mentioned in the follow-up post.

funny think is matty!!! u talking about copyright infringement and yet you are using assassin’s creed picture which an “IDEA” of ubisoft creative team which definitely a copyright infringement!!! who knows if ubisoft file compliant against you let see what u say about that!!!

Hey, I’m Connor Beaton, and I’m responsible for editorial and image editing across most parts of zConnection. We’re using these images under an editorial license, as indicated in the site footer. There’s no malicious copyright infringement going on here, nor would I call a game screenshot an “idea”. If you want to continue to speak on Ubisoft’s behalf, I’d be happy to listen to you, though.

Loretta: I’d be interested to know where you got your copy of LINK. Did you enjoy it? Surely when you read about the advanced Link lab you saw the similarity with the Animus 2.0 lab - actually you should have found it to be a direct copy from LINK’s graphic description. No, it wasn’t the money that caused me to file a Complaint. Thanks for reading LINK.